Abstract
The principle aim of this paper is to reconsider the suitability of Austin and Searle’s Speech Act theory as a basis for agent communication languages. Two distinct computational interpretations of speech acts are considered: the standard “mentalistic” approach associated with the work of Cohen and Levesque which involves attributing beliefs and intentions to artificial agents, and the “social semantics” approach originating (in the context of MAS) with Singh which aims to model commitments that agents undertake as a consequence of communicative actions. Modifications and extensions are proposed to current commitment-based analyses, drawing on recent philosophical studies by Brandom, Habermas and Heath. A case is made for adopting Brandom’s framework of normative pragmatics, modelling dialogue states as deontic scoreboards which keep track of commitments and entitlements that speakers acknowledge and hearers attribute to other interlocutors. The paper concludes by outlining an update semantics and protocol for selected locutions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Austin JL (1962) How to do things with words. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Brandom R (1983) Asserting. Noûs 17:637–650
Brandom R (1994) Making it explicit. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London
Brandom R (2000) Articulating reasons: an introduction to inferentialism. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London
Bratman M (1987) Intentions, plans and practical reasoning. Harvard University Press
Chaib-draa B, Dignum F (2002) Trends in agent communication languages. Comp Intell 18:89–101, Introduction to special issue on agent communication languages
Chesnevar C, Simari C (2005) Towards computational models of natural argument using labelled deductive systems. In: Reed C, Grasso F, Kibble R (eds) IJCAI-05 Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA05), pp 32–39
Cohen P, Levesque H (1990a) Persistence, intention and commitment. In: Cohen P, Morgan J, Pollack M (eds) Intentions in Communication, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, pp 33–69
Cohen P, Levesque H (1990b) Rational interaction as the basis for communication. In: Cohen P, Morgan J, Pollack M (eds) Intentions in Communication MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, pp 221–255
Cohen P, Perrault R (1979) Elements of a plan-based theory of speech acts. Cognitive Science, p. 177–212
Cohen PR, Levesque HJ (1995) Communicative actions for artificial agents. In: Lessor V, Gasser L (ed) Proceedings of the 1st international conference on multi-agent systems (ICMAS’95), San Francisco, CA USA, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, pp 65–72
Dummett M (2005) The justificationist’s response to a realist. Mind, pp 671–688
FIPA (2002) FIPA communicative act library specification. Technical Report SC00037J, Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents, Geneva, Switzerland, Specification dated 2002/12/03
Flores RA, Kremer RC (2002) To commit or not to commit: Modelling agent conversations for action. Comp Intell 18:120–173. Special issue on agent communication languages
Gärdenfors P (ed) (1992) Belief revision. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Ginzburg J (1996) Dynamics and the semantics of dialogue. In: Seligman J, Westerstahl D (eds) Logic, Language and Computation Vol. 1. CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp 221–237
Girle R (2000) Modal Logics and Philosophy. Acumen, Teddington
Grice P (1957) Meaning. Philosophical Review, 66. Reprinted In: Geisson H, Losonsky M (eds.) Readings in Language and Mind 1966. Oxford, Blackwell, pp 103–109
Guerin F, Pitt J (2003) Verification and compliance testing. In: Huget M-P (ed) Communication in multiagent systems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 98–112
Habermas J (1984) Theory of communicative action, Vols. 1 and 2. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK
Habermas J (1998) On the pragmatics of communication. Cambridge, UK, Polity, Edited by Maeve Cooke.
Hamblin C (1970) Fallacies. Methuen, London
Heath J (2001) Communicative Action and Rational Choice. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London
Kibble R, fthc. Reasoning about propositional commitments in dialogue. Research on Language and Communication, To appear.
Lance M (1995) Two concepts of entailment. J Philosophical Res XX:113–137
Lance M, Kremer P (1994) The logical structure of linguistic commitment I: Four systems of non-relevant commitment entailment. J Philosoph Logic 23:369–400
Maudet N, Chaib-draa B (2002) Commitment-based and dialogue-game based protocols—new trends in agent communication language. Knowl Enging Rev 17:157–179
Parsons S, McBurney P (2003) Argumentation-based communication between agents. In: Huget M-P (ed) Communication in Multiagent Systems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, New York, pp 164–78
Searle J (1965) What is a speech act? In: Black M (ed) Philosophy in America. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. Reprinted In: Geisson H, Losonsky M (eds) Readings in Language and Mind, 1996. Oxford, Blackwell, pp 110–121
Searle J (1969/2001) The structure of illocutionary acts. In: Martinich A (ed) Philosophy of language. Oxford University Press. Reprinted from John Searle, Speech Acts (CUP: 1969)
Searle J (1969) Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Searle J (1979/2001) A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In: Martinich A (ed) Philosophy of language. Oxford University Press, Reprinted from John Searle, Expression and Meaning (CUP: 1979) pp 1–29
Singh M (1999) A social semantics for agent communication languages. In: Proc. IJCAI’99 Workshop on Agent Communication Languages, pp 75–88
Stich S (1978) Autonomous psychology and the belief-desire thesis. Monist. Reprinted In: Lycan WG (ed) Mind and cognition: An anthology, 2nd edition, 1999, Oxford, Blackwell, pp 259–270
Traum D, Allen J (1994) Discourse obligations in dialogue processing. In: Proceedings of the 32nd meeting of the ACL 1–8
Traum D, Hinkelman E (1992) Conversation acts in task-oriented spoken dialogue. Comp Intell 8:575–899
Walton D (1999) Applying labelled deductive systems and multi-agent systems to source-based argumentation. J Logic and Comp 9(1):63–80
Walton D, Krabbe E (1995) Commitment in dialogue. State University of New York Press, Albany
Wooldridge M (2000a) Reasoning about rational agents. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London
Wooldridge M (2000b) Semantic issues in the verification of agent communication languages. J Autonomous Agents Multi-Agent Syst 3(1), 9–31
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Rodger Kibble is a Lecturer in the Department of Computing, Goldsmiths College, University of London. He has worked as a researcher at the Information Technology Research Institute, University of Brighton, and the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. He received his PhD from the Centre for Cognitive Science in the University of Edinburgh in 1997. He has published conference papers and journal articles in the formal semantics of natural language, natural language generation, anaphora resolution, dialogue modelling, argumentation and multi-agent communication; and coedited Information Sharing: Reference and Presupposition in Language Generation and Interpretation (CSLI, 2002).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kibble, R. Speech acts, commitment and multi-agent communication. Comput Math Organiz Theor 12, 127–145 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-006-9540-z
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-006-9540-z